Since you're the last one to perform a revert "pending discussion" on Joseph Smith, Jr. - and haven't actually discussed the substance of the changes, why not start that discussion there? - It's Mormonlicious 18:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
... I'm not sure what you mean. The discussion is already ongoing, under the heading Issue with Mormonlicious edits, and you've participated in it. Tijuana Brass20:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I meant that you (almost) said you agreed with my changes, and yet reverted them without discussion - or rather the only discussion on your part being a demand that I receive approval prior to editing the wikipedia article, which isn't the way things work. If you're going to involve yourself in a revert war, you owe editors the courtesy of actually discussing your reason for preferring the version you're reverting to. - It's Mormonlicious20:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I've given you that courtesy. From the talk page: ...the reverts on your work aren't being done out of spite or an unwillingness to be open to discussion. Work things out here so everyone can reach an agreed-upon consensus. Then put in the changes. That'll save a lot of reverts on everyone's part. I reverted because you were making a contested change without waiting for consensus. Even if I were to completely agree with you and wanted to change the wording of the article in the exact same manner that you have, I still would have reverted — because the discussion on the change hasn't been finished.
Look. While your account is new, you obviously know how Wikipedia works; your comprehension of things like WP standards of format and editing without any visible learning curve (through the User Contribution records) make that clear. So you probably already know that there's no need to be impatient and push things through the way you want without talking it over. If your revision — in this article or any other — is the better version, it's eventually going to be clear to a greater number of editors, and it'll stay. If not, big deal, there's plenty of other things on here that need work. But however new you are or aren't, you may already be stepping on the toes of some of the other editors that have been involved in the LDS Wikiproject here for a while, and that's not the best way to start off — myself, I'd rather work alongside other editors than against them, even if my personal POV is different (case in point, I'm an ex-Mormon). Maybe an editor mistook you for a sock because you started off a little aggressive... who cares. When people start taking stuff personally on WP, the articles suffer.
I, for one, am glad to have another editor with a fresh perspective on the LDS articles. So, even if you've been on WP for a long time, welcome. Glad to have you here. Ask me if you need anything. Tijuana Brass23:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What you haven't done is indicated in any way why you prefer the wording you reverted to. It's absurd that the change I made should be in any way controversial, and it's absurd that it seems to be leading to a witchhunt. - It's Mormonlicious00:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the WP:AIV page, you stated that these articles are junk; however, they seem legitimate, and nothing appears to be wrong with them. I'm removing them for now, however I'll look into the matter more. MoP06:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I put up a deletion notice on the bogus article, and put a redirect on the other one. Now there is a redirect to the real one. MoP06:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not really an administrator; I just stepped in to help a bit, seeing as they all seem to be sleeping. However, there is no basis on which to block this user; he has only made 3 edits, two of which were regular vanity and one which was just a page move. Or I'm missing something. MoP06:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was acting upon the sentence where you told me "...that need to be deleted; Nathan Sean MetcalfeTricks of the Windows Game Programming Gurus...". MoP06:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He hasn't vandalized in a while; so I think that we can let him loose this time. Any damage he may have done is gone, and everything has settled; if he does act up, we can immediately block him. But thanks for being bold and bringing this to our attention! MoP06:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concern. I can list him at DRV if you really wish, but he is quiet for now. This isn't my ruling, really; however, other editors agree with this course of action [1]. In that edit, an IP was removed from the list as it had not vandalised in a while. These types of vandals usually just give up; they vandalize a bit, and then leave Wikipedia. However, if he does return, he will be blocked quickly as he is a repeat offender. I'm not saying that I won't list the article at DRV; if you wish me to, feel free to tell me (I don't hold any grudges, ever) :)MoP06:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you too :) I'm supposed to be working on an essay, but that can wait, and I have a coffee brewer in my room, so the night is long. Anyway, about the vandal; generally, there are three types of vandalism; the curious one, who will just randomly edit an article to test. These usually aren't malicious; they will pop in, test their newfound editing power, and start making useful contributions. Then, there are semi-inspired vandals, like the ones we just faced; they may do some bad, but nothing really large, and will give up in the end, deciding it bad usage of their time. Then, you get the real thing, which will go to great lengths, sometimes even changing IPs using complex methods, to vandalise the Wikipedia; these are the type that are most often blocked.
Anyway, just wanted to clear that up; we tend to believe in second chances, and will only block if there is no hope left. You yourself are an experienced Wikipedian, so I'm not trying to lecture you; only give you a bit of a guide to go on. MoP06:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That album cover really makes your user page nifty, Herb has such a look on his face. But some may ask you to remove it as it's apparently fair use and Wikipedia policy on fair use is "only in articlespace", more or less... hope that helps. No reply necessary, but if you do, here is fine, I watch. ++Lar: t/c05:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dang. Really? And Herb looks so sexy-but-he-don't-even-care. Sure there's not any loophole I could exploit here... say... linking to an outside image? Tijuana Brass06:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(I assume you moved here to talk here and are watching here) I am not a wikilawyer, just another editor. But I think you can link to anything. You just can't embed. all images that are visible in pages have to be hosted on WP or commons, that's the way the SW works here. (it's some sort of extension because on BrickWiki you can embed images. ++Lar: t/c06:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, (I'm a bit confused as to why this convo is appearing in both places, as I said it was fine to stay here, I'd respond here, per the convention documented at the top of my talk page, now there are bits of it out of synch.) I think the help desk probably is your best bet. Good luck... it's a long shot but maybe you could find a publicity still taken by a photog that would GFDL it to us? ++Lar: t/c11:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I hope that my over-generalized label of you as "critical towards Mormonism" in the explanation wasn't offensive. I had a feeling that even if it was, you wouldn't be lost up in the semantics... I was at a loss of words on how to describe the varying POVs of the editors. I'm not sure if my own self-label as "sympathetic" was accurate either, but, whatever.
On an unrelated note, fun user page. I'd drop an award on for your staggering number of userboxes, but I'm not sure where to fit it in. Tijuana Brass01:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't find it offensive, so don't worry about it. If you really wish to award my userbox compulsion, feel free to do so on my talk page :D...I am looking at how I can reorganize my userpage and break it down into sections, so anything userpagish left on my talk page can be factored in when I finally get around to doing that...glad you enjoyed it anyway. bcatt02:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Joseph Smith, Jr., and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.
Hi Tijuana Brass, I erred on the side of inviting all known participants who have edited and been responded to on the Joseph Smith, Jr. talk page in the time of the dispute. We would appreciate your agreement or non-agreement to participcate or at least a response on at Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#Joseph_Smith.2C_Jr. - especially as you have been able to keep a level-head though all of this. Thanks in advance. -Visorstuff14:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know you are interested in christianity, and I recently started a new wiki over at wikicities which is on the subject of christianity. Christian Knowledge Base is the site.
The goal is to have a knowledgebase on christianity from a distinctly "C(hristian)POV" rather than the NPOV. It is not meant to be a mere Christian Encyclopedia, but to foster a real sense of community. I'd like to include things like current events, news, stories, and anything that would add to both an understanding of Christianity, but also its enjoyment. I'm looking for help to build a resource that could really enrich the lives of Christians.
I know you are busy but I am actively seeking new sysops/admins to help me build this site up, and I would be positively thrilled if you could contribute in any capacity whatsoever. nsandwich05:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No template, just copy the code from the top of my page. Do you know how to make templates? I don't, and think it would be a great idea to make it into a template. Waikiki!!! --ElectricEye01:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How can we make a template? I think it would be much easier if we had this on a template, as right now I have to cut & paste the whole things to people's pages... Hard work :\ Waikiki!!! --ElectricEye01:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It works!!! Sorry to bother with so many messages. But you asking me this led me to investigate and learn about templates. It was easier than I thought! ^_^ Waikiki!!! --ElectricEye01:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You move fast, I was still working on one when you created yours. I moved it to Template:Welcomeg, the new name is more in line with other welcome templates. Now, when signing a page, type {{subst:welcomeg}} ~~~~ and it'll be all set. Note that I removed your name so all users can use it; signing it with the four tildes will tag it onto the end. Try it out at the Wikipedia:Sandbox! Tijuana Brass01:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And no worries about multiple talk page messages. It was fun to watch you move from question, to trying it out, to having it work. Tijuana Brass01:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Check the Help Desk for that one. A more experience template programmer should be able to make that work. You seem to have done well by just experimenting, so you may want to try that -- just make sure to do experiments only as previews (or in a sandbox) rather than saving them to a page that will be in use. Tijuana Brass01:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No prob! Glad you're involved. Tijuana Brass 01:44, 7 April 2006
I figured it out: {{welcomeg|signature}} - doesn't leave code on talk page, only the tag; {{subst:welcomeg|signature}} - copies code to talk page and can then be further modified right on the users' talk page. --ElectricEye03:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey — hope you don't mind me following your talk page; I had marked it to watch back when you were putting together the template... I got on it to unwatch it, notice that it's huge, and read through this conversation. Can I make a suggestion / ask for some help? The Counter Vandalism Unit could always use dedicated Wikipedians such as yourself to help out. Redvers is a member, and patrolling for garbage new articles is part of it, along with watching for vandalism... take a look at the link, try it out for a while, and see how it works. Helps to give an appreciation for the sheer numbers that go into Wikipedia... literally thousands of edits an hour at times. Also may help to better see where Redvers is coming from, as keeping track of nonsense articles can be tedious. Make sure to try out Crypto Derk's Vandal Fighter (available on the CVU page) if you give it a shot; it makes it much, much more manageable.
Anyways, just an idea, if you're looking for more to do — given how much you've gotten into already, it looks like you're already putting that 200 wpm to good use. You must go through several new keyboards each year. Tijuana Brass04:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tijuana, and again thank you with the template. It is because of you that I now know how. I think I should just remain on the Welcoming Committee for now. I would rather welcome new users, and choose to get involved on selected cases, until I learn more about Wikipedia. I have worked on some articles and have some ideas, and I'll also be focusing on those over time. Also, I will try my hand at dealing with vandalism, but only a little bit, to learn as REDVER has suggested. Waikiki!!! --ElectricEye05:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a plan. You know... just to overwhelm you with more ideas, from one wiki-addict to another... you may also enjoy participating at the Help Desk, which would go hand in hand with the Welcoming Committee. Or even the Reference Desk... oh, and check out the Village Pump to collaborate with other editors sometime... and definitely the Wikipediholic Test. Then, after all of that, I can give you the number for my shrink, who tells me that I really need to stop spending so much time with Wikipedia. Tijuana Brass05:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, that's kinda funny. Looks like it to me. Typically, if you're unsure whether it's vandalism but it looks probable, it's all right to go ahead and revert it — if the contributing editor considered it impotant, they'll usually come back and defend it, making it easier to tell if it's a returning vandal or a legit edit. The history log is always a click away if a mistake happens, after all. Tijuana Brass23:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the subject Chris Medlock is no longer a city councilman in Tulsa. His term is over and he is just another unemployed citizen, and that is quite literally true. (NB prior announcement in Talk section on Medlock) Perhaps you would reconsider my proposed deletion. Best... Tex01:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I don't know your political views, but something in you saying "he is just another unemployed citizen" strikes me as pretty funny. Maybe it's just from doing polisci in college. At any rate, even though he's now out of office, he did hold office previously, correct? I would consider that sufficient notability for mention, particularly if there's a scandal involved, which sounds like the case. But, then, I recognize that others may not agree with me, and I'll agree that it barely makes the cut (at least in my book). Do you have firsthand knowledge of who he is, or was it one of the things that you just kind of stumble across? Just wondering if somebody from the Tulsa area would be able to put it in better perspective.
On a totally unrelated note, I noticed on your user page that you're a Longhorn. I may be moving to Austin in about a month or so for a new job; did my undergrad in San Antonio. Always good to run into people from the same area. Tijuana Brass03:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although a Longhorn, I'm living in Tulsa now. I was looking at the list of Oklahoma pols when I ran across Medlock. Much to my surprise as none of our other councilors are in Wikipedia, and no other articles link to Medlock. Some of our mayors are there, but that seems reasonable to me. Medlock's term on the Council has been marked mainly by obstructionism. When elected he was employed by TV Guide, where a friend of mine knew him. Since then they have had massive reductions, and both Medlock and my friend lost their jobs.
When I was in Austin it was a sleepy little government/university town. Now it's a big city with traffic problems and high-tech industry. However you can get some terrific Mexican food there. Try Fonda San Miguel on Medical Parkway. And the barbecue is the best on the planet. The best places are in little towns around Austin like Dripping Springs, Lockhart, Driftwood, etc. There used to be a great place in Dripping Springs called the Salt Lick. Also the County Line in Austin is good and has a great view of the lake. A bit pricey, though.
Yeah, I need to consolidate those welcomes. And I still think Medlock's article needs to go. Even though I actually added most of the interesting stuff about him! Perhaps we should check and see whether similarly-sized towns have their city councilors in. I doubt it! Tex13:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the recommendations. Actually gone by the County Line a time or two, and you're right, the barbeque is as good as it comes.
Concerning more mundane details... it sounds like you more than did your homework. As much as I enjoy a scandal, I'd defer to the judgment of a local Wikipedian on it. I was considering an RfC as an alternative, but the article is so small, it doesn't really seem like it needs to come to that. In any case, I'll second your prod, if you'd like to put it back up. Thanks for explaining it for me. Tijuana Brass16:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I'm glad to know someone is paying attention to this stuff. I did check Oklahoma City and couldn't find any mention of their councilors. Tex19:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I responded to your note on my talk page. I support the deletion. Would be nice to save the info into some other article though, as it is unusual and shows the effects of HK. -Visorstuff18:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I just had to to take a closer look back through your history as I saw you were involved in a dispute - but now I see the full picture no problem I will go ahead and move you to be added to the approved section. Thanks for you patience! - GlenTC02:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there. The thing is with VandalProof we have to look through everyone's history before approving as if they get in edit warring or have warnings we can't approve. When you applied I took a quick look and saw at the top of this page:
"A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee in regard to the article Joseph Smith, Jr.. Mediation Committee procedure requires that all parties to a mediation be notified of the meditaion, and indicate an agreement to mediate within fourteen days."
As we were run off our feet at the time I made a note to the other mods that everything checked out with you except that I wanted to just ensure that the mediation wasn't due to any controversy you'd been involved in. As soon as I did look you were of course cleared immediately. Sorry if that "label" made it seem like a bigger deal than it was, since then we've added an Approval Holds section for any similar situations. Is that all cool? - GlenTC19:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
I have resubmitted the article for a featured article, please check it out and enter a vote from the link on the discussion page, and any help cleaning it up if you feel necessary, would be appreciated. (VCHAPMAN 15APR06)
Happy Easter to all of you, and I hope that this version may fix your current problems and perhaps provide you with a few useful new tools. You can download version 1.1 at User:AmiDaniel/VandalProof. Let me warn you, however, to please be extremely careful when using the new Rollback All Contributions feature, as, aside from the excessive server lag it would cause if everyone began using it at once, it could seriously aggitate several editors to have their contributions reverted. If you would like to experiment with it, though, I'd be more than happy to use my many sockpuppets to create some "vandalism" for you to revert. If you have any problems downloading, installing, or otherwise, please tell me about them at User:AmiDaniel/VP/Bugs and I will do my best to help you. Thanks. AmiDaniel (Talk) 06:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest you take a holistic look at the facts before you make the kind of comments you made on my talk page. As an administrator you have a responsbility (although it is really held by all Wikipedians) to assume good faith on the part of all editors. The Joe Sobran page has been a place is serious contention. The facts show that this man is a neo-Nazi racist anti-semite. This is backed up by the citations on the bottom of the page. Let me know if you have any further questions. CaliforniaDreamlings07:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)CaliforniaDreamlings[reply]
Hmm, think I'm gonna take my hands off this one; it's an edit war that I don't care to be a part of. In any case, if there was an error, please accept my apology — typically, when I see an article history with such a large number of reverts and an edit summary that reads "SOBRANS A BIGGOT...DONT FORGET IT", it's vandalism. Hope that y'all can work it out. Tijuana Brass07:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you're saying but it just really pisses the hell out me that this guy perverts Christianity for racist uses. He's basically argueing that Jews, blacks, and Asians, are sub-groups in America that are ruining the country. And his involvement in Holocaust-dening organizations and suggestions that "something needs to be done about insiduous minority pests" just really sets me off. And I'm just a person whose damn pissed off by that BS. CaliforniaDreamlings07:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)CaliforniaDreamlings[reply]
Tijuana Brass, the following categories have been targeted for deletion or movement by User:Bhoeble. If you are around, please express your opinions ASAP. Thank you. WBardwin08:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5.2.22 Category:Latter Day Saint history to Category:History of Mormonism
5.2.23 Category:Latter Day Saint History Books to Category:History books about Mormonism
5.2.24 Category:Latter Day Saint Historians to Category:Historians of Mormonism
Just want to let you know your initial appraisal of User:CaliforniaDreamlings was the right one...this user does not even attempt to disguise that they are here to push a POV, which is supposedly justified under the guise of fighting racism, and involves using wiki as a soapbox and vandalizing pages of individuals that are deemed un-progressive....just thought you should know.St. Jimmy14:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note, I appreciate it. I'm not sure if you saw the note that I left on his talk page, but after I reverted him, I looked through the edit history and saw that there was a conflict going on — and thought I'd take my hands off, since I don't know the first thing about the subject of the article. I'm bad enough when it's an article I do think I understand. Hope that you all can get it worked out; let me know if I can help in any way. Tijuana Brass18:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you are not registered for voting or nomination in the CJ elections, and would like to remind everyone that all Candidates Must Submit Their Statement By April 23rd. Voting will begin April 24th, and end May 1st. More details on how to nominate yourself can be found HERE.
Hi, I noticed your grievances regarding user Zora`s edit-warring. If you have any concerns, you can participate in this case [3]. Please be a civil. Thank youZmmz03:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome, Tijuana Brass, to Esperanza, the Wikipedia member association! As you might know, all the Esperanzians share one important goal: the success of this encyclopedia. Within that, we then attempt to strengthen the community bonds, and be the "approachable" side of the project. All of our ideals are held in the Charter, the governing document of the association.
Now that you are a member you should read the guide to what to do now or you may be interested in some of our programs. A quite important program is the StressUnit, which seeks to support editors who have encountered any stress from their Wikipedia events, and are seeking to leave the project. So far, Esperanza can be credited with the support and retention of several users. We will send you newsletters to keep you up to date. Also, we have a calendar of special events, member birthdays, and other holidays that you can add to and follow.
In addition to these projects, several more missions of Esperanza are in development, and are currently being created at Esperanza/Possibles.
I encourage you to take an active voice in the running of Esperanza. We have a small government system, headed by our Administrator general, Celestianpower, and guided by the Advisory Committee comprised of JoanneB, FireFox and Titoxd. The next set of elections will be in April, we will keep you updated about the results. Because you are a new member, you are not able to vote in these elections, but you will be more than welcome to take part in the elections in June.
If you have any other questions, concerns, comments, or general ideas, Esperanzian or otherwise, know that you can always contact Celestianpower by email or talk page or the Esperanza talk page. Alternatively, you could communicate with fellow users via our IRC channel, #wikipedia-esperanza (which is also good for a fun chat or two :). If you're new to IRC, you may find help at an IRC Tutorial written by one of our members. I thank you for joining Esperanza, and look forward to working with you in making Wikipedia a better place to work!
---
Hey Tijuana Brass,
Thanks. You just have cheered me up a lot. Just having a person talk to me with kindness and respect is all I need sometimes. I'll see if I can follow your suggestions. I might just get away from Wikipedia altogether for a while. Good luck in whatever path you choose to follow and
peace from Maggiethewolfstar23:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just got back home. There are some really nice people on Wikipedia. You and the other people from Esperanza have calmed me down and made me feel welcome. There's a great guy named Merecat who befriended me, early on in this edit war I've been involved in. There's a bunch of really nasty people around on Wikipedia, too. The same bunch, it seems, that have been on me are also on Merecat. They have a rfc page going on him now. Is it okay for me to request help for him? Or is this not a good idea? You've had a hard time also from weird political people?
How long have you been at Wikipedia? Please send a message anytime. I would love to hear from you. thewolfstar02:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Tijuana Brass, Thanks for your message. I enjoyed it a lot. Whatever you do, please don't get offended by any particular thing I say here, like anything...please.
You said
Heh, my political disputes were all in person — it seems that, back in college, being a member of both the Democrat and Republican groups just irritated people in both. That's what I get for being a moderate, I suppose.
I can only imagine how frustrating and angrifying that must have been. I have the same experience when talking to Dems or Repubs, myself, although I am not a moderate and don't consider myself to be in the 'wing' at all. I sympathize with a moderate stance, however, and believe that the extreme left and right wings of the U.S. are what have, in the 20th century, destroyed this country, and sold it out to foreign interests. (Fascists and Socialists).
I've only been involved in politics in the last maybe 8 or 9 years, and mostly, up until the last couple of years, only to the extent that it affects the environment and people. I voted against Nixon when I turned 18. (The lesser of the 2 evils thing) I didn't bother to vote again for about 30 years. I knew I hated all sides of the then current political debate by the time I was about 9 or 10. I read a book about "Saccho and Vanzetti" when I was 12 and knew immediately that, that was what I was..a humanitarian anarchist.
I would love to be a part of building a completely new party. One that actually bases it's ideology on Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine, and it's sentiments and guts on the brave actions of Patrick Henry and Daniel Shays.
You wouldn't know any place I could find people that might be interested in something like that would you?
You said
Concerning the RfC on Merecat, any user that is concerned can jump in, so long as they're familiar with the situation and understand what they're talking about (obviously). If it's the first RfC you've ever looked into, you may want to limit yourself to endorsing the summaries of others; it'll help give an idea of what goes on in the process.
I am really a noob at Wiki. I don't know the situation and don't know how to tell where it is. Thanks for your advice about limiting my endorsements to the comments of others. I can't honestly say that I will do this. It depends on the whole picture and how I feel about what is going on. I already made a comment on the talk page of this rfc. I'll have to check and see if it's still there. How can I tell what the situation is so I can check it out?
Tijuana Brass, many thanks for your conversation and response. I really am enjoying our conversations.
in freedom, justice, and peace for the wildthings, Maggiethewolfstar16:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When I said "You wouldn't know any place I could find people that might be interested in something like that would you?" I meant the following:
I would love to be a part of building a completely new party. One that actually bases it's ideology on Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine, and it's sentiments and guts on the brave actions of Patrick Henry and Daniel Shays.
I am an anarchist but a practical one. Real anarchy in the world? It would be nice but in the light of the One World government it's likelihood of succeeding is mighty slim.
I am serious about making a new completely different party. One that is really what Jefferson would have wanted. One that would satisfy Daniel Shays and me and most people like you. Most people are good at heart. I still want to believe that. Wikipedia and some other places really make me wonder, though. We are in a police state. In the country, in the world in a lot of places, big time here at Wikipedia. It's scary, what goes around here.
I've only been here for about 3 weeks and have literally managed to tick off most of the people I talk to. I don't even try most of the time. Sometimes I really do try cause they are really deserve it. But I guess that doesn't go along with the Esperanza spirit.
All the best for your finals. My exams are not weeks away, November in fact, but given my grades are literatelly bleeding (like how Malaysian Airlines is right now) is something that keeps bothering me. 10 hours in campus daily, under the repeated, repeated, repeated, and repeated assumption by many that I'm not working hard enough because I'm not performing (yes, such is the highly-competitive environment here) doesn't help matters with my health increasingly taking its toll as a result of sheer overwork and with no good new strategy on improving matters. At least you have an unemployment cheque - Here is a society where there is no free lunch, but this doesn't really matter for now cos' I still have a long way to go. In short, I'm in search for a turnaround. - Mailer Diablo10:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your message of support. I didn't know the unemployment check was a joke, because it's something unheard of here. (:P) In any case hopefully I can work out a turnaround pretty soon (and quick!). - Cheers, Mailer Diablo11:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your kind words. And welcome to Esperanza! The alerts page is good, it's nice to be able to drop a line to people who are feeling stressed out. -- Natalya16:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OKAY. First thing. Before I came to wikipedia, Admiralty House, Sydney was nought but a four-line stub with a few external links. I came and published my work on wikipedia, turning the article into a comprehensive history of the building in a single edit. And seeing that the article is completely based upon my work, don't you think it would be logical to reference it? Same with the Theory of Portuguese discovery of Australia. Charles Bean and Symphony already existed but have been significantly improved by my works. Can you not see what affect these works have had on wikipedia? And you delete the references? Come on. Seriously. √αʑʑρεɾ11:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're misunderstanding what's at issue here. Your edits to all of those articles are welcome and I appreciate them. However, Wikipedia has a policy of no original research; in other words, this is not the place to publish your own findings. If you'll take a time to look at the link I provided above to Wikipedia:Reliable Sources, the research one here, and Wikipedia:Verifiability, you'll understand what I'm referring to. Notice that I didn't remove any changes you made to the article other than the addition of references which don't meet said criteria — as far as I can tell, the other changes you've made to articles are pretty good. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@17:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are youthatnarrow minded? For instance, my "own findings" just happen to be the most comprehensive histrory ever written about Admiralty House, Sydney. I thought that I would benefit the public by publishing my works on Admiralty house on wikipedia. Regardless of whatever policies you're into, it to me seemslogicalto cite the source that the article is completely based upon, above other sources that did not even achieve anything for the article. For one who is in to latin jazz, you dissapoint me. √αʑʑρεɾ02:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your message says it all. Let's go through it, visiting the three guidelines mentioned above:
My "own findings" just happen to be the most comprehensive histrory ever written... — WP:NOR, WP:RS and WP:V, along with an self-referential claim to greatness by a person who has no academic credentials.
I thought that I would benefit the public by publishing my works on Admiralty house on wikipedia. - WP:NOR again; Wikipedia is WP:NOT for publishing your ideas and research.
Regardless of whatever policies you're into... - Actually, they're the policies that Wikipedia is into. Don't kill the messenger, it's never been personal, although you've often taken it that way.
...it to me seems logical to cite the source... - WP:RS, as it's a "company" that you made up, WP:V as you can't verify independent research.
...that the article is completely based upon...WP:NOR again, WP:V again.
...above other sources that did not even achieve anything for the article. - A clear sign that you just haven't done your homework, rejecting published sources for a paper you wrote. Speaking of that, didn't your teachers have you base your papers upon what you've found in some books? Try those instead — that's what we're looking for here.
For one who is in to latin jazz... - Huh?
...you dissapoint me. - Well, that was bound to happen. WP:NPA, I suppose, but I won't take it personally.
I know it's been tough to accept, but this isn't about you or your writing, it's about an academic standard. I wrote a long paper on homosexual marriage and natural law as a capstone project during my senior year as an undergrad. I put a lot of work into it, referenced it well, and was proud of it. I'd consider it an accurate analysis of the topic, one that is worthy of mention by others, but I've never tried to get it published. As such, it has no peer review or acceptance by the academic community at large, and would fall under WP:NOR as well — meaning that I can't use it here. It's not a judgment of quality or dedication.
I'm glad you've made some positive contributions here. Keep them up, the articles could always use another knowledgeable person. Just keep in mind the standards set out to help create a verifiable, reliable encyclopedia. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@03:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to the Theory of Portuguese discovery of Australia article, how do you confirm that a resource is "not published by reliable and reputable sources"? I just ask, because when I googled to try and find more about this book, there were two hits to Wikipedia. The other one was for a different book by the same author and published by the same publishing house in the Admiralty House, Sydney article (try the same google search). But just because it can't be googled doesn't mean it hasn't been published... How does this work? (I've read WP:VERIFY already) — Donama01:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just realised, User:Jazzper wrote to you 2 messages above with regard to this question. It seems like his name is Jazzper and these two resources were written by him. Obviously it's wrong by WP:NOR for User:Jazzper to use his own original research on Wikipedia, but surely if these are published works, it's fine to quote them. I still don't understand how you know these books weren't published by a "reliable or reputable" publisher? Please help me out here, because verifiable resources about these topics in Australian history are scarce enough. — Donama03:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
:D! Thank you. Well, the script it uses is User:Misza13's, and the images were found on Commons. Feel free to steal if you'd like, :-) It's pretty straightforward setting it up. The script is here, I believe. Look for "StatusChanger", though you do require AddLiLink to use it. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 04:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! That's really nice of you. "Barnstar" makes me think of barnstorming, definitely an admirable occupation to aspire to. Well, make it a great day. Novel-Technology19:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned that your contributions to this discussion may not be in keeping with the guiding principles of Esperanza. As a relative n00b,I'm quite willing to accept that I may have missed some of the finer points, but I wonder if a less dismissive approach to the concept in general might not be appropriate. After all, this discussion can be viewed by all editors/users, not just the relevant party. With thanks, Colonel Tom12:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"if they keep going, {{personalproblems2}} could refer them to User talk:Crzrussian. Guarantee they won't come back after that. " doesn't seem to marry too well with "members strive to recognize situations where Wikipedians need help, hope, or reassurance. Esperanzians try to match those who desire help with those who offer it." Colonel Tom16:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry that you see things that way. This was a case of a repeat vandal manipulating a serious subject because he thought it was "fun" — which may be why some people may not have reacted as you expected to. I think that reading over my comments in the thread, along with other things I've done, would make it abundantly clear how I stand on the issue — the {{suicidehelp}} template was made primarily to address the need that you and a couple other editors pointed out.
There's a balance to be struck between goodwill and playing into vandals hands... for that matter, there's one between taking Wikipedia seriously without taking oneself too seriously. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@17:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you letting me know re the template. I also appreciate the intent behind the template. We are probably misreading each other to a degree here - my concern in the suicide discussion was around the impact it may have on other users, who weren't trolls, to see a lighthearted response to a possibly genuine call for help, than to have wikipedians devise a concerted and concerned strategy. In short; while the initiator of this debate might be a troll, others who subsequently read it may not be. I am concerned that another straw could be added to a camel's back through a humourous approach to suicide. This was certainly the only aspect I've referred to on your talk page, unlike in the admin space, where I concede that my quoting kingboyk would be taken ambiguously at best. I certainly agree with a lot of what you posted, and I would like to stress that my comments in the admin talkspace were directed at other users far more than yourself. I do take suicide seriously (unlike almost anything else that I see in meatspace). Frankly, I shan't be apologising for that particular lacunae in my sense of humour.
I wasn't so much looking for the template to be created as I was looking for a less dismissive approach. That doesn't mean that I disregard your solution / response - again, I thank you for the construction of the template. I'll certainly have a look at the deletion debate, and appreciate you making sure I was aware of it. My genuine thanks, Colonel Tom12:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear T. Brass, I really appreciate your vote and your kind words in my RFA. It has passed with an unexpected 114/2/2 and I feel honored by this show of confidence in me. Cheers! ←Humus sapiensну?02:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...has asked that you be informed that she has been blocked. Her block was for personal attacks, and for a duration of 24 hours (approximately half over at this time.) As the blocking admin, please let me know if you have any questions or if I can be of assistance in any way. KillerChihuahua?!?04:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for voting on my request for adminship. I have decided to withdraw my nomination as it seems that consensus will not be reached. If you voted in support, thanks for putting your trust in me to be a good admin. If you voted in opposition, thank you as well for your criticism as it will only help me be a better Wikipedian and perhaps help if/when I apply for adminship again sometime in the future.
Whoever removed this, unless it was Tijuanna Brass Don't remove it again
Hey Tijuana Brass, wazzup? Whare were you yesterday. I needed you big time. Where were all the Esperanzans? The only ones that commented on my talk page yesterday were some nasty admins saying stupid stuff. The block they put on me was done totally illegally. No legal procedure was there at all. Can you write me back? Thanks Maggiethewolfstar04:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Think a short template would be practical... something along the lines of "WP:NOT for med/mental problems, see WebMD, etc."? Then, if they keep going, {{personalproblems2}} could refer them to User talk:Crzrussian. Guarantee they won't come back after that. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@07:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Tijuana, I saw your edit to the Trading Spaces program and noticed you want someone to fix your unholy ugly and perverted beautiful userpage. South Texas... thats red white and blue, right? _-MoP-_12:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That was fast. Heh, don't worry about a Texas design, anything would work. Thanks for offering to take it up, I'll owe you an NPOV check or reference finding... or something. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@12:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What colours are you attracted to, however? Or maybe a specific color change so that I can give you a few purdy options. _-MoP-_13:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I aim to please... :) And yes you do. Get a girfriend. Or a boyfriend. Maybe even both. Or just two of the same type. Heck, a dog would also work... GarrettTalk12:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I'm quite excited to help revamp your page. :) Before I start, are there any color schemes, organizational techniques, or other aspects of design you have in mind? Cheers, Sango123(e)20:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your taking of time to offer encouragement. You asked for a longer explantion, here is a short version of a longer explanation <grin>:
I dropped into the Cuba article about a month ago. I suppose it is no surprise, considering the long history and heat of political divide between US and Cuba, that partisian editors are attracted there. Also, no surprise that a systemic bias tends to exist among these editors, reflecting fact that the 'english speaking' side of the systemic bias divide is more anti-Castro than not.
What I found to be discouraging is that when I tried to point out and correct this bias towards neutrality, I was met with personal attacks[4] and personal threats[5]. When I objected to this incivility, by a margin of 3 to 1[6], the incivility has been approved. This experience does not reflect what I had imagined Wikipedians would be like. BruceHallman16:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support on my RFA. Unfortunately, it did not achieve consensus. I look forward to your support in a couple months when I apply again. Holler at me if you need anything. ⇒SWATJesterReadyAimFire!19:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, How is that trolling? My understanding of trawling is distructive inflamatory behaviour. His edit did not seem like that. And he doesn't seem to be sarcastic. --hydkat22:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at the edit history of Anonymous editor's talk page. AE has blanked Bhadani's comments a number of times and asked him to stop posting to his page. Bhadani then added a note to Esperanza telling people that AE was "probably under great strain and stress for reasons beyond his control," which was either a shot at further harassment, or extreme misjudgment. In any case, it was clearly not a feeling that AE shared, and bordered on a personal attack. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@05:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Tijuana Brass. It was annoying to receive so many useless messages from Bhadani and his annoying conclusions that I was under stress. The same thing happened a month ago and I told him to stop, but the same thing started again this month with him doind the same every day. This was bordering on trolling and harrasment, and Bhadani was told by a number of editors besides me to stop this. He's been spamming several user talk pages, but not as much as mine. I hope that this "token of respect" is an apology for his actions and now that other editors also aware of the issue that Bhadani will stop this. Thank you Tijuana. Regards, --a.n.o.n.y.mt23:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't remove them, just add/leave a comment below each one pointing out 'only one edit' or similar- the closing admin will know not to take them into account. Cheers, Petros47123:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Annoying that (getting conflicting advice on Wikipedia and on IRC- that's happened to me a few times). The above I said based on observation of previous AfD sock-fests, where it is always left for the closing AfD admin to decide what counts and what doesn't. Petros47123:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tijuana Brass. So here's the deal with album covers: album covers are copyrighted. There's a thing called fair use which allows people to use copyrighted material, without permission, for non-commercial, educational use. That's why we're allowed to have album covers on articles--because there is critical commentary on the album in question, and the album art is directly related to the article. Any other use, such as featuring the image on your user page, does not qualify for fair use because there's no critical commentary. Does that help at all? Let me know if you'd like more info. ~MDD469623:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
